12/7/41, a date which will live in infamy

[werepossum]

No doubt about it, Japan suckered punched us on 12/7/1941, and had not our air craft carriers left Pearl Harbor for other missions a few days before, the Japanese would have been far harder to defeat.

But the thing not to be missed is that the USA had far wiser leaders back then, and once will beat the crap out of Japan, we let them up gently, and now they are US allies.

What good does it do to win a war if we lose the peace? Something we seem to lost sight of since. But as somewhat self taught student of that period of history, the USA got two huge lucky breaks, one at the battle of Midway and the other at Layte Gulf.
Had Admiral Kirita exploited his advantage, the push for Japan could have taken another year. Had one simple catapult not temporarily malfunctioned, the Japanese may have found the USA air craft carriers first at the battle of Midway.

Granted, luck is always important in war and we had some both fights, but luck was the smaller portion of both. At Midway, we knew the Japanese plans and order of battle, thanks to British code breakers (whose success in turn was totally enabled by Polish code breakers - whose treatment was completely shameful. Rejewski alone could have been worth probably near as much as the whole British-American effort, and instead probably the most brilliant cryptologist ever born finished the war breaking low level codes while his country remained enslaved.) We did get the breaks we needed, since we were totally outclassed in ability and especially in equipment, but a lot of good men pressed suicidal attacks to make those breaks. At Leyte Gulf too we enjoyed luck, but the attacks of the little boys was so fierce that the Japanese, after suckering us completely out of position, lost every ship but one of the first attack fleet and then the second attack fleet turned and fled from the attacks - many of them from ships with long-empty racks. Luck in that it could have easily gone the other way - war always can - but due primarily to the fierceness of men who attacked into what should have been suicide to protect vulnerable troop carriers. When destroyers and destroyer escorts press attacks on battleships, that's more than just luck. Let's all recognize the bravery and sacrifice of those who put themselves at the sharp end, even granted that luck is always important.

Also, let's all remember that what is most important to remember is not what you think your enemy will do, but what your enemy CAN do.

 

[Darwin333]

im not sure which was more barbaric, roosevelt allowing pearl harbor, the japanese doing it, or truman dropping two atomic bombs on civilians. im inclined to say that last, it way outdid even 9/11

but the firebombings were cool and the bombing the everloving shit out of cities with "dumb bombs" and, well pretty much everything else that went with that war.

War is hell. Only one real way to win a real war and when it really matters you do it. When it doesn't the people (at least our people) do not have the will, nor should they. It really mattered and we had the will, thank whoever it is you thank for that.

 

[feralkid]

We should have only focused on the Pacific and ignored Hitler's declaration of war.

Yes, just pay no attention those U boats off the Atlantic coast sinking everything in sight. They"ll soon get bored and head back to Germany.

 

[Infohawk]

Yes, just pay no attention those U boats off the Atlantic coast sinking everything in sight. They"ll soon get bored and head back to Germany.

I'm still waiting to hear what kind of demented explanation he has for leaving Europe to itself... he's pretty creative. Let me try to predict: Maybe "The Europeans would have killed themselves out leaving more peaceful races to bring a new utopia to Europe."

 

[CanOWorms]

Because having Europe and Russia controlled by the Nazis or Stalinists would have been in the interests of the USA.

Europe controlled by Nazis or Stalinists would not have been in the interests of the USA. But neither was one controlled by Churchills or de Gaulles.

 

[CanOWorms]

Yes, just pay no attention those U boats off the Atlantic coast sinking everything in sight. They"ll soon get bored and head back to Germany.

Would they have attacked the US if we didn't provide pre-war support to their enemies?

 

[Infohawk]

Europe controlled by Nazis or Stalinists would not have been in the interests of the USA. But neither was one controlled by Churchills or de Gaulles.

That's funny because most people recognize the dominant power in Western Europe post-WW2 was the United States. Yeah, Churchill and De Gaulle were JUST like Hitler and Stalin, minus all the election stuff and being in an alliance with the US... but those are just minor details.

 

[CanOWorms]

That's funny because most people recognize the dominant power in Western Europe post-WW2 was the United States. Yeah, Churchill and De Gaulle were JUST like Hitler and Stalin, minus all the election stuff and being in an alliance with the US... but those are just minor details.

Yeah, we sure had a lot of indisputable control over those pesky European governments. What's that Suez Crisis? The US had a lot of influence and military power, but all it did was provide them with the capability to return to their old ways.

 

[Linflas]

Would they have attacked the US if we didn't provide pre-war support to their enemies?

Eventually, yes.

 

[CanOWorms]

Eventually, yes.

I can just as easily say no.

 

[Infohawk]

Yeah, we sure had a lot of indisputable control over those pesky European governments. What's that Suez Crisis? The US had a lot of influence and military power, but all it did was provide them with the capability to return to their old ways.

It never ceases to amaze me how you rewrite history. The Suez crisis is the quintessential America tells its smaller European allies what to do story. France and the UK ended up backing down only because of American pressure.

 

[Infohawk]

I can just as easily say no.

Except the part where Hitler was pretty much bent on World domination and considered the US to be weak because of its racial mixing...

 

[CanOWorms]

It never ceases to amaze me how you rewrite history. The Suez crisis is the quintessential America tells its smaller European allies what to do story. France and the UK ended up backing down only because of American pressure.

It never ceases me how you rewrite history. It shows that we did not have total control over them like you're suggesting. Being the supposed dominant power in Europe was useless. They just returned to their old ways.

So we lost lives. Sent Americans to die for something that doesn't benefit America. Billions of dollars. And for what? Nothing.

 

[CanOWorms]

Except the part where Hitler was pretty much bent on World domination and considered the US to be weak because of its racial mixing...

Sounds like Churchill.

 

[Infohawk]

CanOWorms says Churchill is just as bad as Hitler or Stalin. I think that sums up his credibility right there.

 

[CanOWorms]

CanOWorms says Churchill is just as bad as Hitler or Stalin. I think that sums up his credibility right there.

Actually, he might be even worse than them. I don't see how it hurts my credibility. Churchill was a war criminal. He supervised and approved the deaths of millions of civilians.

Just because we tend to ignore Churchill's atrocities doesn't mean that they did not happen. If we didn't help him out then we would be reading about his stuff just like we do with Hitler. Unfortunately, we bailed him out and since he was on our side we can't dare pretend that we aided an absolute monster.

Cultural viewpoints are interesting. Other parts of the world don't view him favorably. Some parts of the world don't even know of Hitler's atrocities. There is a lot of history. Why would it all be standardized across the entire world? People emphasize different things in any curriculum. But just because you don't concentrate on something doesn't mean it didn't happen.

 

[feralkid]

CanOWorms says Churchill is just as bad as Hitler or Stalin. I think that sums up his credibility right there.

I seriously wonder where he gets these...interesting ideas?

 

[Infohawk]

I seriously wonder where he gets these...interesting ideas?

There's probably a deformity of some kind in his frontal lobe.

 

[CanOWorms]

I seriously wonder where he gets these...interesting ideas?

There are lots of resources on Churchill. Here's a recently released one:

Churchill's Secret War: The British Empire and the Ravaging of India during World War II
http://www.amazon.com/Churchills-Sec...1779267&sr=8-1

It has strong reviews.

Publishers Weekly
““[W]ell-researched…This gripping account of historical tragedy is a useful corrective to fashionable theories of benign imperial rule, arguing that a brutal rapaciousness was the very soul of the Raj.”

The Independent (UK)
“Mukerjee has researched this forgotten holocaust with great care and forensic rigor…Her calmly phrased but searing account of imperial brutality will shame admirers of the Greatest Briton and horrify just about everybody else.

Sunday Times (UK)
“[A] significant and – to British readers – distressing book…the broad thrust of Mukerjee’s book is as sound as it shocking.”

Washington Times
“Churchill’s Secret War is a disturbing read, and one that I recommend.”

He had other events in Africa and Southeast Asia as well.

Is it appropriate to be a holocaust denier when it comes to Churchill? Why do you think that one of the first things Obama did in the White House was to remove Churchill's bust from the Oval Office?

 

[JD50]

Please tell me you didn't major in any sort of historical field...

OBLAMA2009 has made some of the most uninformed posts that I've ever seen, I'd ignore him.

 

[feralkid]

There are lots of resources on Churchill. Here's a recently released one:

Churchill's Secret War: The British Empire and the Ravaging of India during World War II
http://www.amazon.com/Churchills-Sec...1779267&sr=8-1

It has strong reviews.

It is also arguably boloney.

Because Britain chose to use scarce food supplies to feed its homeland before exporting to its colonies, Churchill is as bad as Hitler.

Right...............

 

[CanOWorms]

It is also arguably boloney.

Because Britain chose to use scarce food supplies to feed its homeland before exporting to its colonies, Churchill is as bad as Hitler.

Right...............

There were not scarce food supplies. Because he chose to stockpile food for post-war economic reasons (among other things) and purposely caused millions of deaths of those he considered subhuman, Churchill was not a bad as Hitler.

Right...............

He was worse.

 

[MikeMike]

how the fuck does a Pearl Harbor remembrance thread turn into a "this country was worse than that country, and did this that and the other thing"

oh, its P&N, full of bullshit posted, trolls, and rabid dogs that salivate at the thought of arguing on the internet...

nice job Anarchist, ActiveX, and CanoWorms... fucking trolls

 

[ProfJohn]

I had a chance to visit Pearl Harbor a few years ago.

Being in Hawaii period was amazing on the first day and driving around the harbor and knowing which way the planes flew in from etc etc was neat.

The Arizona is also amazing and it still leaks oil. or else they sneak out every morning and reload it or something

 

[BeauJangles]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VqQAf74fsE

America remembers the day we were forced into the most horrific war humanity has ever seen.

Hats off to our greatest generation for preserving our country in its darkest hour. We emerged a superpower.

Let's get this thread back on track.

Condolences to those who were killed that day, those who served, and those who gave their lives to defend this country.

It'd be nice to leave the misguided historical debate to another thread and another topic.